Right to Life New Zealand

Upholding the sanctity of Human life and Standing Up for the Vulnerable

Letter to Director General of Health on Abortion

by Leave a Comment

10 March 2022

Clare Perry,

Deputy Director General of Health

Dear Ms Perry,

Thank you for your reply of 17th January 2022. I wish to take this opportunity to respond to several of the issues raised in your reply.

I am aware of the process that has resulted in the killing of the unborn being taken out of the Crimes Act and being treated as “a reproductive health issue”. Abortion was in the Crimes Act since the founding of our nation because it was universally recognised that the killing of an unborn child was a serious violation of human rights and a crime. The total prohibition of the taking of innocent human life is the foundation of the law and of medicine. Prior to 1977 abortion was recognised as a serious crime, abortions were prohibited unless it was believed that it was necessary to save the life of the mother.

The Royal Commission on Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion appointed by the fourth Labour government in 1975 reported to Parliament in 1977. The report stated that the Commission had received submissions from all around the world upholding the scientific truth that human life began at conception and that there was no point during pregnancy when an unborn child was not a human being. The Commission also stated that the unborn child was the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family and deserved respect and effective legal protection.

It was disappointing that the then Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, refused our request for the Law Commission to  include in its law review the findings and recommendations of this important Royal Commission. Our request was rejected by the Minister on the grounds that the recommendations of the Royal Commission were now out of date. He rejected the findings of the learned Royal Commission and upheld the legal fiction that the unborn child was not a human being and did not have a right to life until it was born.

The Law Commission made the observation in its report to the Minister of Justice that since the law was changed in 1977, no deaths have been reported of women resulting from abortion and that abortion was safer than birth.

Abortion is never safe for either mother or child. The sole objective of abortion is the violent killing of a defenceless child. Since 1977 there have been more than 546 000  children killed before birth. More than 270 000 of these babies killed were female and future women who died in an abortion. Why don’t these unborn future women count? Abortion is also never safe for the mother as it wounds her physically, mentally and spiritually.

A maternal death is that of a woman who dies in childbirth or from any cause related to, or aggravated by pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes) during pregnancy and childbirth or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy.

The Health Quality & Safety Commission NZ advised RTL that there were 28 maternal deaths reported in New Zealand between 2006 and 2016. Seven of these deaths were the result of suicide within 42 days of having an abortion. These tragic deaths are indicative that women are dying from the grief and remorse of abortion.

Every maternal death is a terrible tragedy, that the death is suicide following the appalling grief of losing your precious child in an abortion is heart rendering.

Right to Life acknowledges that the circumstances around suicide are complex and that there may be other contributing factors such as mental ill health. Right to Life believes that these seven suicides are just the tip of the iceberg as it is believed that many women commit suicide many years later as a direct result of an abortion.

These findings concurred with a large record-based study of 600,000 women conducted in Finland in 1997 which found that women who chose abortion over birth were six times more likely to die by suicide in the year following the pregnancy than women who gave birth to their child.

The Law Commission stated that the complication rate arising from abortion was low. It is noted that the only complications reported by abortion providers were the complications that arose prior to the discharge of the woman after the abortion. In the event that a woman ended up in A&E after the abortion with a complication  is not reported as a complication associated with her prior abortion.. Many serious complications such as future sterility and miscarriages are not reported.

The Commission stated that New Zealand is a signatory to a number of United Nations Conventions that affirm the importance of access to abortion services as a legal health service. The Commission sites the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

It is acknowledged that the UN Committees that have been appointed to ensure that these important Conventions are adhered to by member nations constantly campaign for the decriminalisation of the killing of children before birth, the removal of all restrictions and the treatment of abortion as health care.

Article 12, in CEDAW seeks to eliminate discrimination related to family planning. Those who support the killing of the unborn claim that family planning which features in the Convention, includes abortion, it does not. There is nothing in this Convention or in any other UN Convention that states that abortion is part of family planning.

In December 2019 the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the Inclusive Global Health Resolution that rejected abortion being included as reproductive health.

You refer to Vote Health spending on maternity and Well Child Tamariki Care. I am aware of the current process of funding DHBs to provide health services. I readily applaud the government for the funding of health services to promote and protect life. It however remains a cause of pain for many in our community to have their taxes fund the violent killing of unborn children who are the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family.

It is a cause of national shame that every day an estimated thirty-six innocent and defenceless unborn children are taken to hospitals and clinics to be painfully poisoned, sucked from their mother’s wombs or violently dismembered.

Child abuse begins in the womb, abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. How can we as a nation be really serious about eliminating child abuse when our legislation states that it is a crime to smack a child but before birth you may violently kill the child up to the moment of birth under the guise that this is health care.

Abortion is violence against women. Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women. Abortion betrays the basic feminist principles of nonviolence, non- discrimination and justice for all. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women—and that women at the behest of men have settled for less. Our women deserve better.

It is an appalling injustice to women that the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, refuses to recognise the inherent dignity and worth of the unborn human person, that human life begins at conception and that every human being is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of God’s loving creation.

I believe that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of its existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

When women seek an abortion it is a cry for help. I believe that we could do more to promote open adoption. In conclusion it is my earnest hope that you will do everything possible to protect women from the violence of abortion and to protect the lives of their precious children. A nation that kills its own children is a nation without a future.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr,

Secretary,

Right to Life

NZ Government has no evidence to support Section 159 of the Crimes Act

by 4 Comments

A stunning response from the Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi to our OI Act request. If the Minister and the government have no evidence to support section 159 of the Crimes Act then Parliament should support our campaign to repeal this legal fiction. We encourage the whole pro-life movement to support our campaign.

Section 159 Crimes Act

Fifteen MPs of Maori Descent Vote to Deny Humanity of Maori Unborn Children

by 2 Comments

Media Release 24 June 2020

Right to Life believes that the 15 MPs who claim Maori descent who mistakenly believed that they were supporting women, voted to support the passing of the anti-life and anti-feminist Abortion Legislation Act 2020, unwittingly breached the Treaty of Waitangi. Article three of the Treaty provides protection for the lives of Maori by the Crown. We believe that this protection extends to Maori unborn children.

 Right to Life commends the 12 MPs of Maori descent who courageously voted against the Abortion Bill, thus retaining for the unborn child the protection of the Crimes Act and the Treaty of Waitangi.

 This was a sad day for Maoridom, for Maori women and for their precious unborn. New Zealand must not rest until we elect a pro-life Parliament that will repeal  this appalling legislation. 

When the Treaty was signed in 1840, the Crown gave an assurance that Maori would have the Queen’s protection. It was believed that this was to include protection for the right to life of Maori from conception to natural death, which was provided by the common law of England and carried on in the New Zealand Crimes Act since 1856.

It was the intention of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern who was the architect of this legislation and who believed that it was not a crime to kill an unborn child, to remove abortion from the Crimes Act. Unwanted children including Maori, could then be removed from the protection of the Crimes Act and killed, in the deceptive words of the Prime Minister, “as a reproductive choice for women”. It was the Minister of Justice who was responsible for drafting this legislation who declared in Parliament in presenting the legislation, that the unborn child had no human rights and was not, contrary to medical science, a human being until it was born.

The Abortion Legislation Act provides for an abortion and the killing of the child at the request of the woman up to twenty weeks’ gestation. The Crown withdraws its protection for the child and rejects its responsibility, effectively up to birth, to protect the life of this the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

The Act also :-

  • Denies the humanity of the unborn child.
  • Denies the child’s inalienable God given right to life.
  • Grants property rights to the mother over the child.
  • Declares that it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child.
  • Grants the “right” of the mother to terminate the life of her child.

Statistics NZ advise that 2,991 unborn Maori children were violently killed before birth in 2019. This was 12 more than the 2,979 Maori babies killed in 2018.

Right to Life believes that the following MPs claiming Maori descent should explain to the electorate and the nation why they supported the Abortion Legislation Act that violated the human rights of the unborn and allowed for the Crown in violation of Article three to withdraw its protection for Maori mothers and the lives of their unborn. Hon. Paula Bennett, Hon. Kelvin Davis, Hon. Willie Jackson, Willow-Jean Prime, Kiritapu Allan, Louisa Wall, Paul Eagle, Jo Luxton, Hon. Tracey Martin, Jenny Marcroft, Marama Davidson, David Seymour and Jami-Lee Ross. Peeni Henare and Tamati Coffey represent Maori electorates and have the increased responsibility of upholding protection for the unborn in accordance with Article three of the Treaty in the interests of Maori.

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Parliament Abandons Protecting Women & Unborn Children

by 1 Comment

Last night Parliament shamefully passed the Abortion Legislation Bill by 81 to 39
Parliament believes that the unborn child is not a human being and has no right to life until it is born. That the unborn child is a chattel and is the property of the mother. That it is not a crime to kill an unborn child and that It may be killed as “a reproductive health choice.”


The State has a duty to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. It has a special duty to protect the unborn who are the weakest and most defenceless member of our human family.

Right to Life commends those Members who spoke in the debate and voted in defence of women and the right to life of their unborn and in opposition to this appalling anti-women and anti-life Bill.

This is a sad day for women and their precious unborn who have an absolute right to have the love and protection of the community to do everything possible to protect the life of her child.

Justice Minister Andrew Little objected to the use of graphic pictures by pro-life demonstrators at Parliament yesterday, saying “New Zealanders on average have a low level of tolerance for that sort of extremism. If these people want to go around upsetting the rest of New Zealand, that’s their call.” Right to Life agrees the real life pictures of bloodied and dismembered unborn children is very upsetting. We hope that the Minister is upset. We believe that he is in denial. He needs to understand that abortion is violence against the weakest and most defenceless member of our human family.

Mother and child have had the protection of the Crimes Act section 182, Killing an Unborn Child, since 1856. Parliament has now cruelly withdrawn that protection.

It is a sad commentary on our Parliament that the lives of our unborn children are considered of little value and have little protection while we give absolute protection for eight endangered birds. An offence endangering the lives of these birds could result in two years imprisonment or a fine up to $100,000.

There are fifty endangered species that include the Katipo spider, weasels and beetles.

The Wildlife Act 1953 Section 67A states that it is an offence punishable by up to 6 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000 plus $5000 per extra head of wildlife or egg disturbed or destroyed.

Why does the Katipo spider have absolute protection for its life while our own unborn children have absolutely no protection?

The Bill now awaits its third reading.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Jacinda Ardern- Unborn Child – Not One of Us

by Leave a Comment

It is not good enough that Jacinda Ardern who claims to be promoting an inclusive society, specifically excludes the unborn child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family.

On 15 March on the terrible day that 51 Muslims were brutally murdered at two Christchurch Mosques the Prime Minister was commendably quick to proclaim to the nation and the international community our inclusiveness by declaring, “that they are us.”

Prime Minister every day an estimated thirty-five unborn children are massacred not in mosques, but in our Public Hospitals, their killing authorised and funded by your government, Prime Minister. Instead of speaking out on their behalf you are at the forefront of ensuring their destruction. Why? Are they not us too?

Right to Life believes that the Prime Minister is not only opposed to the rights of the unborn, but she is also is opposed to the rights of men. Authentic feminism is opposed to abortion. Under the guise of being a feminist she is at the forefront of empowering women with the “right” to kill their unborn children.

In her address in Parliament in support of her Abortion Legislation Bill she said that, “abortion should not be a crime.” It is her belief that the unborn child is not a human being and does not have human rights until it is born. This is a legal fiction that flies in the face of all medical science that recognises that human life begins at conception.

Jacinda Ardern is the first Prime Minister in the history of New Zealand who has stood up in Parliament and denied that the unborn child is not one of us. She believes the child is not a human being, that it does not have a right to life and may be killed as “a reproductive choice for women.”

What about the reproductive rights of men? In her address she completely ignored men, making no reference to the rights of fathers. Fathers have a right to be heard in the defence of the lives of their children. Unborn children have an absolute right to have the protection of their fathers for their lives threatened by abortion.

Prime Minister you should be aware that your draconian anti-life bill threatens the trust of men in women to protect the lives of the unborn children that they father and will ultimately destroy the family of exclusively one man and one women.

Abortion is a failed experiment on women. Prime Minister stop victimising women because you don’t care enough to offer these women love, acceptance and positive life affirming help.

The pro-abortion movement was founded by men to exploit women. It is a clever and diabolical strategy for men who support the subjugation of women to use prominent women like our Prime Minister to promote the decriminalisation of abortion.

Abortion betrays the basic feminist principles of nonviolence, non -discrimination and justice for all. Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women and that women have settled for less. Women deserve better.

Prime Minister we need real abortion reform that will protect both women and the unborn by firstly retaining abortion as a crime in the Crimes Act and secondly repealing section 159 of the Crimes Act and recognising that every unborn child from conception is a unique and unrepeatable miracle of creation, endowed with an inalienable right to life.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

Abortion Bill Legislation Committee Refusing to hear 95% of Submitters

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 10th October 2019

Right to Life believes that the Special Abortion Legislation Committee is violating the right of citizens to be heard and undermining our Parliamentary democracy.

The Committee has advised that there were more than 23,000 written submissions made to the Select Committee and that  2890 submitters made a request to have the opportunity to make an oral submission. It is believed that only 150 submitters have been granted the privilege to be heard, only 5% of that total. This is totally unacceptable in a democracy.

Hon Ruth Dyson said: “The committee welcomes hearing from a wide range of people on their views. We understand that this is a sensitive and important topic, and we look forward to engaging in a respectful and open discussion.”

Right to Life is aware that this is a special committee created by the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little for the exclusive purpose of considering this bill and submissions. This Committee has no other business and should has stated devote itself to hearing from a wide range of people on their views and engaging in a respectful and open discussion.

Those who govern should not forget that they govern with the consent of the governed. We the governed have an absolute right to be heard. This is a bill like no other in the history of our nation. It is a bill that if passed will allow hundreds of thousands of children yet to be conceived to be violently killed as “a reproductive choice for women.” It is a bill that will increase the victimisation, suffering and abandonment of women.

This bill seeks:-

  • To remove the protection of the State under the Crimes Act for women from the violence of abortion.
  • To remove the protection of the Crimes Act for the life of unborn children, so that it is no longer a crime to kill an unborn child.
  • To allow for the killing of the unborn child up to 20 weeks for any reason at the request of the mother.
  • To allow for the killing of the child up to birth at the request of the mother if a doctor considers it appropriate.

The community should be concerned and alarmed that the Minister of Justice wants this committee to act with urgency in reporting this contentious bill back to Parliament in order that it can be rushed through Parliament and passed into law before the 19 December 2019 the last sitting day for this year.

Statesman are concerned about the next generation but politicians are concerned about the next election. Next year is an election year and the government does not want to lose the support of many in the community who are passionately pro-life and opposed to this anti -life and anti-feminist bill.

There is no urgency to pass this bill. There is however urgency for the Committee to ensure that every citizen who wants to be heard, both those for and against, before the bill is reported back to Parliament by 8th February 2020.

Ken Orr,
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

More lives would be lost, ruined

by 1 Comment

Catherine Gillies

The following article is a guest post by Catherine Gillies.

As a post-abortion counsellor having helped facilitate the healing of many suicidal women and desperate men, I think it’s horrendous that this cruel, uncompassionate and poorly researched abortion legislation is being promoted.
For over 35 years I have heard stories of heart-break – many women are incapacitated by PTSD, or other debilitating conditions. Most women felt they had been vulnerable when they discovered their pregnancy and had no other choice but abortion. They certainly never gave informed consent!

I now work with children and grandchildren of post-abortive women. The long-term impact of that vulnerable “unchoice” is intergenerational trauma, as the living children suffer the consequences of the wounded mother’s unresolved grief for their lost children. I’ve seen mothers grieve a five-week foetus as they would a five-year-old child.

Most major international studies, and importantly, New Zealand studies, indicate abortion has detrimental long-term impacts on a woman’s mental and physical health. There is a great deal of evidence that it also impacts men severely.

The stories I hear of medical sloppiness and women being coerced and lied to about needing to make an immediate decision, whether they discover their pregnancy at five or 15 weeks gestation, are frustrating. Many are shocked to learn the legal time limit in New Zealand has been 20 weeks for the past 40 years.

Removing abortion from the Crimes Act will increase the bullying that already happens within our taxpayer-funded abortion services.

Let’s not lose sight that abortion is a multimillion-dollar business in New Zealand. It is not in the interests of the abortion industry to have informed consent, good pre-abortion counselling, or restrictions or safeguards in their businesses. Removing abortion from The Crimes Act is likely to lead to even more bullying and coercion, more heartache, and lives lost and ruined.

Studies all over the world show that women who have a history of neglect or abuse are far more likely to have abortions, as they do not have the emotional strength to listen to their own desires; they are vulnerable to bullying and coercion. The abortion makes an already vulnerable person hugely weaker, physically and psychologically.

There is a significant social cost of abortion. As a taxpayer, I am concerned how our tax dollars are spent. When taking into account the long-term detrimental impact of abortion, it is potentially the most expensive procedure on which the government spends our health budget. It is the tax system that deals with the long-term impacts.

Evidence shows there is a correlation between abortion and:

* Future mental health problems

* Increased physical health problems

* Increased rates of suicide

* Increased risk of death by homicide

* Higher rates of addictions

* Incarceration rates

* Relationship and family break down

As families and communities we can offer better solutions to vulnerable pregnancies than abortion!

Right to Life Challenges The Spinoff on Abortion Claims

by Leave a Comment

The Editor,

Spinoff.

1st September 2019

Dear Sir,

Formal Complaint

I wish to make a formal complaint against the article “10 common myths about abortion,” published on the 29thAugust 2019. I believe that the article breached Principle 1 of the Press Council, accuracy, fairness and balance.

I fully support the right of free speech which should be used to inform. The media are at the service of the community and I believe have a serious duty when dealing with highly contentious issues of great importance to endeavour to provide the case of both sides of the issue. Regrettably I have not seen any articles that seek to defend the right to life of the unborn and to protect women from coercion, exploitation and violence. The pro-life movement in New Zealand numbers tens of thousands of members and supporters who are passionate about defending women and their unborn. It is ironic that (according to Dame Margaret Sparrow), ALRANZ has an estimated national membership of about 100 members. I question their claim that they represent the views of the majority of New Zealand women.   

Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. Abortion is the only medical procedure that has the specific objective of terminating the life of another innocent and defenceless human being. No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.

Myth One protests that abortion is under the Crimes Act. There is no explanation why abortion is in the Crimes Act. It is actually under Part VIII, Crimes Against the Person. The prohibition of the taking of the life of an innocent human being is the foundation of the law and of medicine. Since 1856 the Crimes Act sections 182, “Killing Unborn Child” and 183,”Misscarriage Defined” have recognised that the killing of an unborn child is a serious crime. These sections state that no woman may be charged with a crime. Abortion is in the Crimes Act also because the state recognises that it has a serious duty to protect the lives of every person from implantation until natural death. The writer is wrong in asserting that the state has no duty to protect the unborn child the most vulnerable member of the human family. 

The article claims that it is not easy to obtain an abortion in New Zealand. The Abortion Supervisory Committee in its annual reports consistently advise that 98 per cent of requests for abortion are authorised. Information obtained from the ASC under the Official Information Act reveals that the busiest consultant certifying in the year ending 30 June 2018 received $227,138 in fees for authorising 1452 abortions and declining just four. The second busiest consultant received $159,414 for authorising 1150 abortions and declining just eight. These two consultants were probably abortionists who were paid by the state to perform abortions. We are advised by the Auckland District Health Board that a major reason for women being declined an abortion is that the decision to seek an abortion has been made by the father of the child who coerces the woman with threats of violence and abandonment. 

The article complains that doctors may refuse on conscience grounds to assist in the killing of an unborn child. Doctors are trained to treat the unborn child with great respect as a patient. It is abhorrent for most doctors to be involved with the killing of a patient by referring a pregnant woman to a doctor who is prepared to kill the child.

Myth Two.  The article claims that a major reason for seeking an abortion is that the contraception failed. The ASC reports in its 2018 to Parliament that 8,016 women who had an abortion in 2017 were not using any contraception i.e. 60.3 per cent of the 13,285 women who had an abortion in 2017. The writer makes the claim that “it is wrong to coerce people to do something with their body that they don’t want to do, namely carry a pregnancy.” Woman have an absolute right to not get pregnant, they should exercise that right by abstaining from sexual intercourse. The primary purpose of sexual intercourse is the procreation of the human race and should be confined to marriage. The result of the sexual revolution is women being used, exploited and abandoned. Women deserve better than being left to bring up children as solo mothers living in dire poverty and often with little support. 

Myth Three. The writer claims that anyone with a uterus is capable of experiencing pregnancy. This is an attack on the dignity of women. Only women have been created with a uterus; it is insulting to women to refer to “pregnant people.”

Myth Four. The writer seeks to dehumanise the unborn child by using the medical terms embryo and foetus. The word foetus means little one. Women who are pregnant do not say that they are carrying an embryo or a foetus they are in no doubt that they are pregnant with a baby.

Myth Five. The writer claims that the child in the womb does not feel pain until about the 28th week. Fetal Pain is a reason to end Abortion. Medical experts agree that fetal pain begins at 14 weeks gestation, maybe even as early as 8 weeks. But perhaps the best source for first-hand experience with fetal pain is an abortionist. As early as 1976, those performing abortions realized that the procedure is painful for the dying fetus. Abortionist John Szenes describes an unborn baby fighting for its life during a saline injection, “All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s, to all intents and purposes, the death trauma.”

Saline solution used in this type of abortion causes intense pain when injected under the skin. This solution is injected into the fetus’s sac, burning the fetus from the outside and poisoning her from the inside. During this slow death, which takes about two hours, the fetus thrashes around inside the womb. Her heart rate more than doubles as a response to the solution, in spite of the fact that her heart is not physically touched by the solution. She dies solely from the pain.

Today’s Methods Are Just As Violent

Saline abortions fell out of use in the 1990s because of the risk to mothers and the frequency of babies being born alive. At the time of Roe v. Wade, saline abortion was the most commonly used form of abortion after 16 weeks. Though the methods have changed, they are no less violent. Former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describes 1st trimester dilation and cutterage abortions and 2nd trimester dilation and evacuation abortions, two common practices which tear babies limb from limb, finally crushing the skull to fit it through the cervix. “The abortionist knows he has crushed the skull when a white substance comes out of the cervix. This was the baby’s brains.” Dr. Levatino also describes babies being deprived of shelter and nutrients inside the womb by abortion pills and being poisoned with a digoxen injection piercing the baby’s head or chest.

Myth Six. The writer claims that there is no evidence that abortion results in breast cancer. This is an important issue as 600 women tragically die from breast cancer every year in New Zealand. It is acknowledged by medical science that a woman who has an abortion has more cancer prone cells after an abortion than she had before the abortion. The pro -abortion  medical profession refuse to accept the massive research conducted overseas that reveals that abortion increases the risk of a woman developing breast cancer. What if there was research that showed one action could change your risk of breast cancer by 79%? Would it be worth exploring? What if this action only made it 30% more likely you would develop breast cancer? Would you feel entitled to know more?

These questions are at the centre of Punam Kumar Gill’s new documentary film Hush. Gill, an award winning pro-choice feminist filmmaker dared to ask the question, “Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer?” What she discovered changed her life and revealed that few women are equipped with the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision about their pregnancy.

Gill started her search by looking at the opinions of the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Both categorically stated on their websites that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Case closed.

But is the science actually settled on this question?

Having seen the official story, Gill turned to the published research on the subject to see if it matched what women were hearing from the media and the NCI.

Currently there are more than 108 world-wide studies published on abortion and breast cancer. Fifty-three of them found a strong link between abortion and breast cancer. Twenty-three studies found a small link, and only 29 found no link.

In research jargon, a “link” is properly termed a “positive association” or “increased risk” or “risk factor.” It does not define a cause and effect relationship between the risk factor and getting the disease. It’s important to note that having a risk factor does not mean you will definitely come down with a particular condition, just that you are at an increased risk of developing the disease.

Out of the 108 studies, 79 (nearly 3 in 4) found an increased risk between induced abortion and the later development of breast cancer. When she delved deeper, she discovered that studies from all over the world demonstrated a higher rate of breast cancer among women who have had abortions:

10 out of 10 studies conducted in India

30 out of 37 studies conducted in China

5 out of 6 studies in France

4 out of 4 in Japan

Dr. Joel Brind, professor of Human Biology and Endocrinology, performed a meta-analysis of twenty-three available studies in 1996. He found that there was a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortion histories.

Brind told Gill, “This about science. This is about the effect on women and whether or not abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.” He went on to explain how his meta-analysis was peer-reviewed and conducted in partnership with pro-choice scientists.

In 2014, a meta-analysis published in the international journal Cancer Causes and Control by Yubei Huang et. al of the Tianjin Medical University provided shockingly similar results. Huang examined 36 studies in China and found a 44% average increased risk of breast cancer among women with abortion histories. This risk increased to 76% for those with two abortions and 79% for three. Women have a right to know of the link between abortion and breast cancer. Women have not forgotten how they were lied to by the medical profession about thalidomide which caused severe birth defects in babies in the 1960s.

Myth Eight. The writer claims that women seeking an abortion are made to feel criminals by people who care about women who assemble outside abortion facilities. There is a group who weekly pray and offer help to women attending the abortion facility at the Hastings Hospital. This group has been responsible for offering help and encouragement to women often alone and abandoned in their hour of need with the pleasing result that in recent years a total of 37 babies have been saved from destruction and their mothers from a lifetime of grief and sorrow. If ALRANZ really care about women why are they not out there offering help to women, they do not offer practical help with baby’s clothes, bassinettes and cots to women who choose life for their child? Members of the pro-life movement offer women all the help that they need to care for their baby.

Myth Nine. The writer claims that one in four “people with uteruses” have had an abortion in New Zealand. This statement is insulting to women. This is challenged as every year the ASC reports that about a third of the abortions performed are repeat abortions In 2018, 1,071 women were having their third abortion, 393 their fourth,148 their fifth, 60 their sixth, 22 their seventh and 12 their seventh or more abortion.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Orr

Secretary,

Right to Life.

Why Has Jacinda Ardern Betrayed The Disability Sector?

by 2 Comments

More than half of the unborn children in New Zealand with Down syndrome are killed before they are born. This is a violation of their human rights and a crime against humanity.

Right to Life believes that this is state sponsored genocide, disguised as health care, against a clearly defined group within our community.

Can the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, be trusted?  In 2017 she made a promise to the disability community in response to concerns expressed by the Saving Down’s advocacy group that the new abortion bill would remove the current 20 week prohibition and allow abortions up to birth for foetal abnormality. The Prime Minister responded, “They have said till 40 weeks, which is wrong, which is wrong. We have time periods already set out in law, I am not proposing changes to that. I am proposing it comes out of the Crimes Act.”

Right to Life asks the Prime Minister why she has directed that the Abortion Legislation Bill allow for the killing up to birth of children before birth who may have a disability, including Down syndrome? The current abortion legislation under the Crimes Act allows for the killing of a child before birth up to 20 weeks “where there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally subnormal as to be seriously handicapped.” Down syndrome is considered a mild to moderate disability and Right to Life therefore protests at the killing of any of these special children who are gift to the community.  

The Down syndrome community are the most persecuted community in New Zealand. According to information provided by the Minister of Health under the Official Information Act. In 2017 there were only 47 children born with Down syndrome.  It is estimated that there were 56 babies with Down syndrome who were killed before birth in 2017. Between 2009 and 2017 it is estimated that 694 children with Down syndrome were killed before birth in abortions in New Zealand. 

There is an international campaign to eliminate Down syndrome by killing these children before they are born. In Europe many countries have an abortion rate for Down syndrome of 90%, in Iceland it is nearly 100%.

Government funded screening for Down syndrome and other disabilities is offered to all pregnant women in New Zealand. Right to Life believes that this screening is a search and destroy mission that promotes the belief that only the perfect have a right to life. Those women whose screening reveals a high risk of a baby with Down syndrome are offered an abortion by the government and encouraged to terminate the life of their child. This would contribute to the average annual abortion rate of 62% for Down syndrome.

The Abortion Legislation Bill driven by the Prime Minister holds that abortion does not kill an unborn child and that the child has no rights until it is born. The Prime Minister would therefore logically believe that a child with Down syndrome is not a human being and has no right to life. Right to Life asks her then: Is it your objective to encourage the extermination of children with Down syndrome in New Zealand through their violent termination up to birth?

Why are the Churches and the media silent?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Jacinda’s Abortion Bill Promotes Increased Violence on Women and the Unborn

by 1 Comment

Media Release Sunday 4th August

Right to Life has learned through Newshub tonight that Jacinda’s Abortion Bill will be publicly released tomorrow. In a ‘news’ article which may as well be a promotional piece for those promoting abortion law reform Newshub’s Tova O’Brien gives us her personal pro-abortion views on the matter. In spite of the media spin this bill promotes increased violence, violence against Women and the Unborn.

The government bill is an unprecedented attack on women and their precious unborn disguised as health care. Pregnancy is not a disease and abortion is not health care. This bill constitutes an increasingly lethal attack on the family, by attacking and facilitating the killing its weakest and most vulnerable members, our unborn children.

Shockingly this bill is being driven by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. She is passionate in her belief that the killing of an unborn child is not a crime and that women have a “right” to kill their child in the womb if it is unwanted. She sees the killing as “a reproductive choice for women.” Can the Prime Minister inform the community why she believes that the violent dismemberment of a defenceless child in the womb is not a crime and should be taken out of the Crimes Act, while at the same time stating that smacking a child is a serious crime that should be retained in the Crimes Act? Of course she can not!

It is deceptive and untrue for the Prime Minister to claim that this is not a government bill. We can confidently say this because she stated on Newshub on 23 July, “This is different – it’s not a Government Bill – it’s a Bill just really open to individual Members of Parliament to choose how they would like to vote.” This is patently nonsense. Why is she now trying to deceive New Zealand into believing that this is not her bill that she directed the Minister of Justice to draft in February 2018?

Why does the media not see Ardern’s statement here as needing to be challenged. Again we say it is total nonsense.

The government’s proposed legislation is supported by Family Planning and denies that the child is a human baby. The child is described as “the contents of the womb” to be treated as medical waste to be disposed of at the local land fill.

It is disappointing that the Prime Minister who is a loving mother and genuinely cares about children, child abuse, child poverty and is the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction is oblivious of the plight of our unborn, the weakest and most defenceless members of our human family.

The government has no mandate to remove women and their unborn from the protection of the Crimes Act. A poll conducted by AC Nielsen in 2004 on behalf of Right to Life found considerable support for recognising the humanity of the unborn child, The poll of 1000 persons found that 36% believed that the unborn child became a human being at conception, 14% at the time of implantation and 28 % at a point between implantation and birth. There were therefore a total of 78% who believed that the unborn child was a human being before birth. Why then is the government ignoring the wishes of the people?

The bill denies that the unborn child is a human being and that it has human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life. It provides for the killing of the child up to 20 weeks for any reason After 20 weeks the child may be killed if a doctor considers that is appropriate. This is effectively abortion on demand up to birth.

This is a very sad and disturbing day for New Zealand. The State has a serious duty to protect the lives of every member of the community from conception to natural death. This bill represents the withdrawal by the State, since 1856, from its duty to protect the lives of the unborn and to protect women from the violence of abortion.

Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life

This is the website of Right to Life NZ Inc.
%d bloggers like this: